JWSC

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

emoeller said:

Putin is maniacal and not easily dissuaded.   If both iOS and Android were cut off that would be devastating as the home grown mobile OS that Russia is using is terrible.   Along with other sanctions it would cripple the Russian economy.

Putin is far from maniacal.   He is calculating.  Coldly, calculating for what is best for his country.

In 2014 Hillary promised Ukraine a NATO membership if they left the Russian fold.

NATO and its missiles, fighter planes, bombers, tanks, etc... on Russia's border are a direct threat to Russia -- just as they were to us in 1960 when Russia started moving them into Cuba.

How did Putin respond to Hillary's foolishness?  By making sure she was not elected president.  And, we didn't hear anymore about NATO in Ukraine till Biden took office.

How did Russia respond to all of that?

Russia wanted ALL Ukrainians to have a vote - so they supported the Minsk agreement.  But western Ukraine blocked it (after agreeing to it) -- so only western Ukrainians got to vote -- and they are voting to let in NATO missiles next door to Russia.   Russia is understandably worried about that -- just as we were when missiles were shipped to Cuba in 1960 when we said:  Either remove them or there WILL BE WAR!

The west knows better than to face Russia militarily.  So it is taking the Trump route with "sanctions".
But, like with Trump's.  It is us who will pay the price. Oil prices are already headed up to $100.

Meanwhile, we've been throwing economic warfare around since 2016 and those we are targeting are beginning to take action to defend themselves.  That will weaken us even further.  Actually, a LOT further when the dollar and U.S. financial systems are no longer the world standard.

The losers in this cock fight will be, once again, us, the people.

All we have to do is commit to never letting NATO into Ukraine and this nonsense would be at an end.  We would lose nothing and the world would gain peace.

But no.  Instead we're starting an economic war.

... Stupid.   Very, very stupid.

The post above is chock full of misinformation.

Given the many times that I have countered George since he has been here, I'll spare you the details. Do your own searches on the details.

Here a twitter link to current news on the Ukraine Crisis;

https://twitter.com/i/lists/1494877848087187461

I don’t know about the misinformation part. While I don’t agree with everything George said above, I agree with most of it, especially the conclusion. The losers will be us.

Economic sanctions will be ineffective and only hurt technology businesses such as Apple. Banning the direct sales of iPhones and Macs will only encourage third party intermediaries. It’s pointless.

Alright.  I'll play devil's advocate here.  Someone has to.  As much as I agree that people should have more choice of ISPs, this seems to be a bit of overreach by the FCC.  Cheerleaders of this new rule should be cognizant of the unintended consequences.

1) The argument that apartment tenants have no ability to shop for a better deal neglect the fact that they can shop around for different apartment complexes that have different rules.  It assumes the poor tenants are entirely helpless against "greedily and ruthless" landlords, which is a bit of a stretch.  It's a disingenuous argument and plays to prejudice.  One can also make the argument that market forces should be permitted to work.

2) The FCC appears to be infringing on the rights of apartment complex owners to manage and operate their properties as they see fit.  The FCC stepping into apartment regulation risks increasing overhead costs for compliance and verification of compliance.  Complying with Government regulation isn't just about compliance.  You typically have to show documented proof of compliance, which may involve undergoing the occasion audit.  It is not unreasonable to assume that these costs will be passed on to renters when the lease is set to renew.  This would be true for all apartment complex owners, regardless of whether they permit access to multiple ISPs or not.  There's no free lunch.

I’m not sure what “significant concern” is driving this.  Apple has done what many would have considered impossible under Tim Cook’s leadership.  One could be forgiven for wondering if Steve would have steered the Apple ship just as well or better had he lived.

crowley said:

JWSC said:

crowley said:

JWSC said:

crowley said:

JWSC said:

crowley said:

JWSC said:

They want tech companies to police themselves. That hasn’t worked out very well so far. 

That's part of what this act is for, the introduce penalties if they don't.

JWSC said:

They want to ban illegal and harmful content. Who gets to determine that? Tech companies? 

No, it's a blacklist of activities within the Act, according to reports.

JWSC said:

They want to ban political advertising. But how do you define that? On some level everything is political.

I see nothing about a ban on political advertising.  If there is such a thing, it's not hard to ban adverts that are explicitly political.  And no, not everything is political.

Hello McFly!  Anyone home?  Read the article again.  You missed something about banning "political beliefs."

Calm down sunshine, it doesn't say that, and I missed nothing.  It says "as well as for advertising using sensitive data including sexual orientation or political beliefs" (emphasis mine).  That's not banning political ads, it's restricting ads from targetting users using data held about their political beliefs.  It's meant to prevent bubbles of exclusive political targetting and potential misinformation.

JWSC said:

And as far as wanting tech companies to police themselves, yea, I know they want that.  Duh!  Why anyone would think that is desirable is beyond me.  It's a terrible terrible terrible idea!

It's literally what we have now.  The change is to introduce penalties so that ineffectiveness of self regulation is subject to penalty, thereby encouraging tech firms to take it more seriously.  I'm not sure what's so terrible about that.

MISINFORMATION?!!  Are you kidding me?  Who exactly do you think should be the arbiters of what is and is not misinformation?  The Government?  Large tech companies?  These entities represent powerful entrenched interests that have not hesitated to shut down anyone who threatens their interests.  Too many that are ignorant of history seem all too willing to move us toward an information oligarchy.

We have witnessed what has happened in Russia during Vladimir Putin’s reign.  The free media that sprung to life under Boris Yeltsin has been slowly dismembered.  The most obvious way was forced shutdown of news organizations and the arrest of their management.  The West rightly cried fowl.  But other news organizations simply moderated themselves and became subservient mouthpieces of the state.  We see this happening in Hong Kong right now.  In the West we see few news organizations being shut down.  Instead we see many news outlets self-policing, not for the betterment of society but simply to maintain their approval in the eyes of politicians and government bureaucrats.  I can’t think of a more corrosive act against democratic values.

I love Apple.  But I trust them no more that any other news outlet to arbitrate and gate-keep what is suitable news for the masses.

No one is being asked to be an arbiter of misinformation, so I have no idea what you're so angry about.  This legislation has nothing to do with identifying misinformation, it has to do with the timely removal of illegal and harmful content, and some restrictions on data used for advertising, and additional transparency.

There's some other stuff too, I suggest you familiarise yourself with what's in the Act before ranting any more, or you'll do yourself some damage: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act-ensuring-safe-and-accountable-online-environment_en

Thank you for the link. I read it in It’s entirely. It provides me no comfort whatsoever.

Anything in particular, or are you just determined to be upset?  

What's your angle?  Nothing should be moderated on the internet?

Short answer, I would prefer not to hand over the keys to powerful and vested interests so that they alone can moderate what I choose to see on the interwebs.  Inevitably, they end up protecting themselves and not the rest of us.  Where someone is attempting to incite violence then it can be reported and law enforcement can take it from there. End.

crowley said:

JWSC said:

crowley said:

JWSC said:

crowley said:

JWSC said:

They want tech companies to police themselves. That hasn’t worked out very well so far. 

That's part of what this act is for, the introduce penalties if they don't.

JWSC said:

They want to ban illegal and harmful content. Who gets to determine that? Tech companies? 

No, it's a blacklist of activities within the Act, according to reports.

JWSC said:

They want to ban political advertising. But how do you define that? On some level everything is political.

I see nothing about a ban on political advertising.  If there is such a thing, it's not hard to ban adverts that are explicitly political.  And no, not everything is political.

Hello McFly!  Anyone home?  Read the article again.  You missed something about banning "political beliefs."

Calm down sunshine, it doesn't say that, and I missed nothing.  It says "as well as for advertising using sensitive data including sexual orientation or political beliefs" (emphasis mine).  That's not banning political ads, it's restricting ads from targetting users using data held about their political beliefs.  It's meant to prevent bubbles of exclusive political targetting and potential misinformation.

JWSC said:

And as far as wanting tech companies to police themselves, yea, I know they want that.  Duh!  Why anyone would think that is desirable is beyond me.  It's a terrible terrible terrible idea!

It's literally what we have now.  The change is to introduce penalties so that ineffectiveness of self regulation is subject to penalty, thereby encouraging tech firms to take it more seriously.  I'm not sure what's so terrible about that.

MISINFORMATION?!!  Are you kidding me?  Who exactly do you think should be the arbiters of what is and is not misinformation?  The Government?  Large tech companies?  These entities represent powerful entrenched interests that have not hesitated to shut down anyone who threatens their interests.  Too many that are ignorant of history seem all too willing to move us toward an information oligarchy.

We have witnessed what has happened in Russia during Vladimir Putin’s reign.  The free media that sprung to life under Boris Yeltsin has been slowly dismembered.  The most obvious way was forced shutdown of news organizations and the arrest of their management.  The West rightly cried fowl.  But other news organizations simply moderated themselves and became subservient mouthpieces of the state.  We see this happening in Hong Kong right now.  In the West we see few news organizations being shut down.  Instead we see many news outlets self-policing, not for the betterment of society but simply to maintain their approval in the eyes of politicians and government bureaucrats.  I can’t think of a more corrosive act against democratic values.

I love Apple.  But I trust them no more that any other news outlet to arbitrate and gate-keep what is suitable news for the masses.

No one is being asked to be an arbiter of misinformation, so I have no idea what you're so angry about.  This legislation has nothing to do with identifying misinformation, it has to do with the timely removal of illegal and harmful content, and some restrictions on data used for advertising, and additional transparency.

There's some other stuff too, I suggest you familiarise yourself with what's in the Act before ranting any more, or you'll do yourself some damage: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act-ensuring-safe-and-accountable-online-environment_en

Thank you for the link. I read it in It’s entirely. It provides me no comfort whatsoever.